Wikileaks is reliable
In my opinion, I think Wikileaks is reliable. They put information on the Internet that is pretty powerful. Read on as to why people might think they are more trustworthy than many governments. I think people who take risks to expose the truth can be trusted more than those who try to hide the truth. What do you think?
All the information on Wikileaks is factual and 100% primary source documents. They are not edited for editorial commentary.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong – Voltaire
I believe in transparency in government. I live in a post-communist country. In this country, the government was secret and did many bad things including killing civilians and throwing people in jail and labeled them as terrorists or enemies of the state, even though they were for peace and change in society.
(Disclaimer: I support the US government and the US law 100% and do not encourage anyone to do anything contrary to that and it is extremely important to obey the law. This post like all my posts is just an historical-philosophical post in the abstract, as this site is about political discourse. I am a history buff.)
What does Wikileaks do? It simply presents the facts by individuals who leaked primary source documents. They are not making value judgments, or edit for a particular view as the news does. In contrast, Wikileaks presents the raw facts. In one sense they are news scientists of the political world. They are simply presenting data. They feel they are protecting people from government lies.
Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. – Ronald Reagan
Why do politicians and governments not like them? The real reason is career politicians are afraid of the truth. For example, what if you were doing something illegal or wrong and someone exposed it? How would you feel about the person who caught you?
You can not confuse loyalty to the constitution and the United States with loyalty to bureaucrats and wrongdoings.
Loyalty to the Nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it. – Mark Twain
- The US government wants a criminal charge against Wikileaks, but the 1917 espionage act does not apply as the first amendment protects the journalist. This is true even if the information was from questionable sources and this was supported by a series of US supreme court rulings. Therefore, Wikileaks is reliable and innocent until proven guilty. Further, the espionage acts apply to a declared act of war. Congress must declare war on an enemy, and the question is did congress declare an act of war? I do not think so.
- I think Assange is highly ethical and principled when it comes to principles of truth and politics. He is a political idealist. He has no financial gain from this and put everything at risk. He has lived in virtual captivity in an embassy, yet continues to work on his mission to open up governments. He believes he is doing it to make the world a better place for the next generation because this generation of generals and politicians are the same as the 20th century. You know how that went. Make your own judgment.
It is one thing to be cowardly. Another to lie about it. – Wikileaks
Why do Politicians oppose Assange’s work? Politicians speak loudly against the Assange because they are afraid of the truth. There is something the government does not want people to know. Rarely is it for national security reasons, rather some embarrassment.
It was always a Jason Bourne type convert action that the government did not want people to know about. Very blatant abuses of power and illegal activities but all done behind door negotiation in the name of diplomacy. Then when they were discovered some smooth-talking general would come on and talk about it was to protect people or army, that is why we kept this secret. Even Jason Bourne came clean.
Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. – Martin Luther King, Jr.
- I live also in a historic place, what was once a WWII ghetto made by a police state and the operations was all secret. Civilians were killed and documents were destroyed, if you spoke against this you were a traitor of the state.
Does this type of action sound fair? Does this sound like cloak and dagger a communist government? Think again. In the USA, there are individuals who abuse power. Maybe not with the same extent and certainly not with the same intent, as the USA does not purposely kill people, at least not that I am aware of. The USA is a fair and just democracy, which I believe in. I support and defend the US constitution. I do not support politicians who do things illegal in any country as their harm hurts people on a global scale.
What about the argument it will harm national security?
A lot of Americans lost their lives in foreign wars and police actions, many we should not have been involved in, but to date no one has lost their life because of Wikileaks.
The NYTimes sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest.
I think Wikileaks – NYTimes made a statement in publishing the documents it did regarding the wars and the cover-up of civilian deaths. What if you were one of the innocent people who were accidentally shot by the US military Apache helicopter, and then you died? How would you feel? You will never get your life back. I think you would want the world to know the truth so it would not happen again to others.
Examples of what Wikileaks exposed
- Hillary Clinton mocked Catholics and Christians. I am a Catholic and find this offensive since we are Americans too. It tells me she does not represent people of faith. Even if you are not a believer you should not take this lightly.
- Hillary Clinton describes Latino as “needy”.
- Hilary Clinton mocked Southern.
- Hilary pushed the Obama is a Muslim narrative in order to foster negative facts and campaigning.
- War crimes – For example, there is evidence of war crimes such as a US assassination team making a mistake and killing seven innocent children. How is keeping this secret jeopardizing people? If anything if it is public it will help prevent things like this in the future. The whistle-blower Assange wants you to read the documents and see for yourself if this recent leak has 1000s criminal events by the military. Is this what the military is defending as a security risk? I heard as 60,000 civilians died. These were innocent people.
- Helping the enemy – What about the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban. The US gives a lot of money to Pakistan and they help the other side. To me, this sounds similar to when the US helped Iraq and Saddam? The USA plays these Machiavellian imperial politics and yet we are a democracy. A democracy which George Washington the founder of our country, warned us against overseas involvement and abuses of past governments. If anything this information brought to light, in the open is important to protect American lives.
- Clinton ordered US diplomats to spy on the UN – This I am shocked at and can this be true? Would the US really jeopardizes its international reputation as being a peaceful, trustworthy, altruistic country and engage in cold war tactics?
On another level, did this leak tell us anything that we did not already know, that is, diplomats play a game of closed-door diplomacy. This is especially true in the Middle East and with Russia. They said that we were being pushed to attack Iran, or that Pakistan is a questionable ally or things like that. For example, what if North Korea fell we have plans to set up a unified Korea. I think government officials have an inflated feeling of importance. We knew all this stuff.
The whole world knew that money from Saudi Arabia helps finance Al Qaeda, why the big secret and why is it not more public so it can be stopped and save American lives? There is that new news? Not really. The main thing that bothers people is when innocent civilians get killed and this is not brought out to the public.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has courage
The US government is calling Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange irresponsible and a terrorist. Why? Because they are being exposed. I think Julian Assange has the courage of his convictions and he hopes to expose the truth. How can the truth be harmful? This is old information and not tactical information. In his eyes, it is simply politically dangerous to the people who are abusing power by keeping the truth from their citizens.
(Major Disclaimer: One thing I do disagree with is anything that is not legal. I am a patriot and fully respect the law. I would never ever give US secrets to anyone. I would defend the US the country I love and honor the law and if I was responsible for secrets would keep them. I do not encourage anyone to break the law in any way. Anyone who broke the law or leaked confidential information should be caught by the government. No matter what the tone of this post is, I agree with the US government 100%. I am talking only in theory about politics and transparency. If anyone from the government thinks this post is over the line I will take it down.)
Assange is under surveillance by police, CIA, the foreign government pretty much anyone with a secret to hide. I know the Chinese do not like him. Iceland has offered him asylum. He runs his server in Sweden on PRQ. Sweden has pretty liberal laws regarding the Internet. But there are complexities there, and one of his women accusers I think worked for the USA once.
Does Wikileaks poss a threat to US security?
(disclaimer: I do not recommend anything other than the US party line of government agencies) Yet, I recommend you watch two films that might answer about Wikileaks and Julian Assange:
- War, lies, and videotape is a documentary by French directors Paul Moreira and Luc Hermann
- We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks by director Alex Gibney
I recommend people look at these documents themselves by visiting the Wikileaks website: https://wikileaks.org/ and lets the facts speak for themselves. The website is easy to navigate.
The bias media who are for Clinton in the election is trying to discredit Wikileaks saying is a basically controlled by the Russian government (For example the Hill wrote this). That is 100% false.
Other Wilikeaks type websites are starting to appear with a similar model as Openleaks.
How different generations perceive politics?
I think the type of politics of the 20th century with all the wars and cloak and dagger do not appeal to the new generation as much as truth. The WWII generation had a high tolerance for government secrecy as they were told it was in the national interest. Yet with the exception of Homeland security, this does not seem true. Homeland security does need to be protected as the methods they use directly protects US citizens.
For example, Hillary Clinton’s deleted illegal (because they were on an illegal server) emails does not do anything but expose her for being anti-catholic for example.
Wikileaks is good and reliable:
- The truth is always good.
- Governments in the past from kings, dictators, and communists kept things secret because they had something to hide from the good citizens of their country.
- When people are aware of the truth they are empowered to change, this is a mission of Wiki leaks, to bring transparency to government.
- Contrary to what the inner circle of politicians and old generals says, that is these secrets are harmful if people know about them, the opposite is most likely true as according to the New York Times they are scrubbing the data before it is published. But I do not have all the facts myself. In the long-run, the truth will be good for governments and in the long-run are helpful. Wikileaks is good as long as they are honest and legal.
- A group of independent security professionals says that Wikileaks, it was around in 2001 could have prevented 9/11 as there were obvious signs for that tragedy.
Do you think Wikileaks bad? Think again. Wikileaks is pushing for transparency in government and is reliable in that respect. It brings transparency to the next level, as the organization hopes our children will have a better future which is more open. Consider Thomas Jefferson: ‘The government that governs least governs best’.
I think organizations like Wikileaks, which are committed to the truth can be trusted more than governments who try to hide the truth. So dependable or reliable is a matter of trust. Who do you trust ‘the government party line’ or someone who has the courage to seek the truth?